About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
, advances in technology, a whole host of technologies, gave government officials the power to invade individual privacy in a whole host of new ways. new ways, mr. president, that the founding fathers never dreamed of, and all through those days the congress and the courts struggled to keep up. time and time again, congress and the courts were most successful when they returned to the fundamental principles of the fourth amendment. and it's striking, mr. president, if you look at a lot of the debates that we're having today about the internet and the presiding officer has had a great interest in this, we've talked often about it, certainly the founding fathers could never have envisioned tweeting and twitter and the internet and all of these extraordinary, you know, technologies, but what we have seen as technology has continued to bring us this treasure trove of information, all of these spectacular opportunities, the founding fathers never envisioned, we saw that time and time again, that congress and the courts were most successful when they returned to the fundamental principles o
the director of the national security agency, general alexander, recently spoke at a large technology conference, and he said that with respect to communications from a good guy, which we obviously interpret as law-abiding americans and someone overseas, the head of the national security agency said, and i quote -- "requirements from the fisa court and the attorney general to minimize that to find procedures to protect the individual, the law-abiding americans' rights essentially mean, in the words of general alexander, nobody else can see it unless there is a crime that's been committed. so if people hear that answer to my colleague's question, which frankly general alexander responded to directly, they pretty much say that's what they were hoping to hear, that nobody is going to get access to their communications unless a crime has been committed. the only problem, i would say to my friend, is nor udall and i have found out that's not true. it's simply not true. the privacy protections provided by this minimization approach are not as strong as general alexander made them out to be,
the local funding is and also i wanted to know if you could comment on if there are any new technologies or alternative protective measures that would be very useful in terms of how we protect diplomats and to what extent if we had any new technologies that you say would be useful, would have would have made a difference in benghazi? >> let me just say, someone who is relatively new to this department but has traveled to almost every hotspot in the world, the men and women who have protected security is beyond heroic. i wish we could be here and say that with 100% certainty nothing happens but as you know it's not a proposition. i'm every day amazed and remember we have over 275 consulates, many of them in very dangerous areas where diplomatic security are not only protecting our bass at her and at usaid and like-minded folks all over the world. your point is taken, which is we are having to deal with budgetary constraints but it no time do any of us believe the quality of those men and women protecting us and anyways in anyways diminished. >> you know i mean, we do have the opportunity
pulling location so there are technological advances and things that we can do. there's no federal money. we salute all little bit of it left in arizona that we will make probably available to the counties as may be matching a thing to address the renewal of our equipment but the resources are getting very thin. >> i appreciate that input and it strikes me as compelling. i have one last question. >> would you agree i at the leipheimer testimony the access is diminished by long waiting times and we should be concerned about this impact to read a recent study showed that in this election in 2012, 22% of african-americans, 24% of latinos had to wait more than 30 minutes but only 9 percent of the caucasian or white voters had to wait 30 minutes or longer. would you care to think that show with me what can be done to remedy and what does it say about the continued value of the voting rights act at the time the supreme court is reviewing its appropriateness? >> thank you. i don't have an explanation for why there are longer lines for some minority groups nationwide. i think the explanation may
of changing, changing -- changing technology. let me make two more points about young people. let me tell you two stories about poland. we were in poland i think eight years ago in september. i was going to visit the supreme court in poland, and when you go to european countries you have to go to three sub green card office. -- three the supreme court offices. decoder three dinners and you bring three gifts. [laughter] but they are fine judges and a fine court system. we were first teaching in krakÓw for a few days and then we went to warsaw. and i had arranged to meet with faculty at the university of warsaw. and to explain to me that the students would not be there because this was the third week in september. i don't think they were come into the first week of october, but the fact he was going to be there. they arranged for me to meet with faculty, and we did. midway through the meeting though there's no spinning past and they said oh, justice kennedy, we didn't realize our answering law students are here for an orientation day and they would like you to talk to them. now, law in europe
made necessary by new technology. but congress has failed to do this. some court rulings have likewise fallen short of protecting the full scope -- the full spirit of the fourth amendment as it applies to our world of complex data sharing. courts have attempted in good faith to determine whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in different kinds of information that they might share to third parties, sometimes online. but the result of many of these rulings is a varied and unpredictable legal landscape in which many don't know and can't figure out whether they can rely on the fourth amendment to protect sensitive information that they routinely share with others for a limited business purpose. congress needs to act to preserve the fourth amendment's protections as they apply to everyday uses including routine use of the internet, use of credit cards, libraries and banks. absent such protections, individuals may in time grow weary of sharing information with third parties. i'm cognizant that this area of the law is complex. it's full of changes and full of instances
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6